RTI Corner

Details of actions taken by the RBI regarding Action Taken on a letter addressed to the Governor of RBI by the appellant in respect of an alleged unauthorized transaction conducted by Bank of Baroda in violation of the Banking Regulation Act. The PIO informed that the said letter as mentioned in the query was not received by the Governor's office. The appellant enclosed proof of delivery of letter in his second appeal. The CIC held that the PIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the PIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. The CIC referred to the Delhi High Court judgment dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi v. Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] in which it was held that whether or not such information as provided by the PIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings.
Comments
The Information Commission is the last bastion of fact verification and it is only the law points which are discussed at the level of High Court or Supreme Court. The Information Commission must seize the opportunity to verify the correctness of data provided by the PIO, and penalize the PIO if the information provided is factually incorrect.
Citation: Surjitsinh Mangrola v. Reserve Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/655388; Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought details of enrolment of Mr. Ram Pat Garg who claims to be an Advocate of the Bar Council of Delhi. He sought the copies of all documents submitted by Mr. Ram Pat Garg to get himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council, including his Declarations, Enrolment Form, Affidavits. Education Credentials, etc. The PIO informed that as per records, Mr. Ram Pat Garg was provisionally enrolled as an Advocate vide Enrolment No. D/11197/2022. Further, other information cannot be provided as the same is duly exempted under the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it is a third-party information and no larger public interest has been disclosed. The Appellant contended that there is larger public interest in the information sought as the said person Ram Pat Garg is in judicial custody and that creates a reasonable suspicion on him in justifying disclosure of the sought documents. The respondent contended that the appellant can raise a formal complaint against the said third-party in contention if he doubts the enrollment of the third-party. The CIC ruled that there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party in any of the above-referred contexts.
Comments
Mere making an allegation is not enough, the applicant must establish the larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party.
Citation: Rishabh Sharma v. Bar Council of Delhi, Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2025/107213; Date of Decision: 12.12.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Appellant sought for the attested photocopy of the completed standard assessment (form A & B) for recognition of MBBS seats for the AY 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24, submitted by the Principal of the Kanti Devi Medical College Hospital and Research Center Mathura, UP. The appellant stated that the inspectors or assessors of the National Medical Commission physically visit the college campus to prepare the report, after checking whether the medical college has sufficient number of beds, faculty, nurses and infrastructure of hostels, library, lecture halls, playground and hospital. So, the report has all the relevant information crucial for the prospective MBBS students to decide their admission in a particular college. The assessors give their observations to the replies submitted by college authorities and upon preparation of the report, the assessors send one copy to the NMC and one to the College. Based on the observations and recommendations, the NMC decides whether or not to sanction the running of a medical college and grant permission for admissions for the academic year in which assessment is conducted. Hence, the assessment reports are crucial source of information, particularly for aspiring medical students who can verify the infrastructure and faculty of the medical colleges, whether a particular college is fulfilling the prescribed medical education norms or not to and make admission decisions. The Respondent stated that since Under Graduate Medical Board (UGMEB) is not the custodian of the information, the same was sought from concerned Board i.e. Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) and it was intimated that during the said period MARB will not be able to furnish the Assessment Report under NMC Act, 2019. The CIC held that the information sought by the Appellant ought to be disclosed and placed in public domain. In the past that, the CIC has directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to upload infrastructure, faculty and other related information in the form of the assessment reports of the medical colleges on its official website, nmc.org.in, considering the crucial nature of the information.
Comments
Availability of information about the infrastructure and faculty of the colleges helps an aspiring student to compare them to make admission decisions. Information regarding whether a particular college is fulfilling the prescribed education norms or not must be made public as it is essential for every student.
Citation: Shri. R B Gautam v. National Medical Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/NMCOM/A/2023/669929; Date of Decision: 09.04.2024, 28.08.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information related to the Bharathidasan Institute of Management (BIM) located in the campus of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Trichy such as whether BHEL was a collaborating partner, whether CMD attended the meeting, whether charge-sheet was issued to some officers for granting approval to BIM, etc. The PIO replied that information sought related to BIM which is a private institute and BHEL has no stake in the aforesaid institute. No MoU between BHEL and BIM is available on record. BHEL had allotted the building premises to BIM on lease basis for certain period and thereafter on license agreement basis. In accordance with the BHEL Shop and Allotment Policy, the license fee is collected as per the market rent from BIM and not on any discount or concessional rate. At present, a sum of Rs. 1.40 Crores per annum (excluding GST) is being collected as license fee from BIM. But the Respondent failed to establish how the market rent was arrived at in the absence of any open transparent competitive process. As regards details of tender floated by the BHEL for allotment of its building premises to BIM, the PIO submitted that no document related to the tender is available in their records. The appellant alleged before CIC that BHEL is one of the founders of BIM, and the registration fee for the society’s registration was paid by BHEL. The CIC noted that the Respondent has neither stated in their written submissions nor clarified during the hearing whether grant of its building premises to BIM for establishing the institute was done through open transparent and competitive process through tender/auction conducted by BHEL. No details of any tender process have been provided by the PIO. The CIC observed that it is a matter of common understanding when government land or property is to be leased out particularly to a private institution, such allotment is ordinarily undertaken through an open, transparent and competitive (tender/ auction) process. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that BHEL followed such a procedure before granting its building to BIM on lease. The CIC pointed out that if land or a building is provided by a public authority to a private entity free of cost or at a heavily subsidized rate, such support may itself amount to “substantial financing”. In the absence of any tender or auction records, the method of determination of ‘market rent’ remains unclear. The CIC held that the Appellant too has not been able to substantiate his assertions or demonstrate how the body from which information is sought is owned, controlled, or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, either by BHEL or by the appropriate Government. The CIC noted that on the website of BIM it is mentioned that the institute was established in collaboration with BHEL. Holding that both sides are unable to come clear on the requirement of the RTI Act and/or public funding, the CIC directed the PIO to submit an appropriate affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper to establish the whether BIM is a public authority.
Comments
The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information which he failed to discharge in this case. For seeking information related to BIM, it has to be established that it is owned, controlled or substantially financed by BHEL.
Citation: Senthil Manian Vellaichamy v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/627929 + /657539; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com